Election Nomination Writ in Bangladesh: Article 125, EC Appeals and the 2026 Cases

Election nomination writ in Bangladesh: how the 2026 framework works

An election nomination writ is often the last lawful route back onto the ballot for a candidate whose papers have been rejected, or the last chance for a rival to keep an ineligible candidate off it. In Bangladesh the route is narrow and fast. The Returning Officer scrutinises the papers, the Election Commission hears appeals, and only then does the High Court Division consider whether the decision was made without lawful authority. Every step runs against a printed election schedule, and the Constitution itself limits what a court can do once that schedule is announced.

This guide explains how the system worked in the February 2026 parliamentary election and the reserved-seat elections that followed: the constitutional bar in Article 125, the appeal to the Election Commission, the grounds on which the High Court Division intervenes, the role of the Appellate Division, and the election petition that takes over once voting is complete. It is written for candidates, parties and their advisers who need to act within days, not months.

Summary: A rejected or challenged nomination in Bangladesh moves through three stages: scrutiny by the Returning Officer, an appeal to the Election Commission under the Representation of the People Order 1972, and a writ petition to the High Court Division under Article 102. Article 125 bars challenges to an election itself except by election petition, and requires the Commission to be heard before any court order once the schedule is announced. Speed and a clean record decide most cases.

Key point: In the 2026 parliamentary election, 723 of roughly 2,568 nomination papers were rejected at scrutiny and 645 candidates appealed to the Election Commission. For those who still lost, the High Court Division became the final route, and in at least one high-profile case the Appellate Division later cancelled a candidacy after polling day.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What an election nomination writ is and when it arises

An election nomination writ is a petition under Article 102 of the Constitution asking the High Court Division to review a decision about a candidate's nomination paper. It usually arises in one of two ways. A candidate whose paper was rejected asks the court to declare the rejection unlawful and direct the Election Commission to treat the nomination as valid. Alternatively, a rival candidate asks the court to set aside a decision accepting a nomination, typically on grounds of loan default, dual citizenship or a defective affidavit.

Article 102(2)(a) allows the High Court Division, where no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law, to direct a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic to do what the law requires, or to declare an act done without lawful authority to be of no legal effect.[1] The Returning Officer and the Election Commission both perform such functions, which is why their nomination decisions are reviewable in principle. The harder question is when review is still permitted, and that is answered by Article 125 and by the structure of the election law itself.

For an overview of how writ jurisdiction works more generally, including standing, interim relief and appeals, see our guide to the writ petition in Bangladesh.

The Article 125 bar and its limits

Article 125 begins with the words "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution". Clause (a) shields laws on the delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats from challenge in any court. Clause (b) provides that no election to the office of President or to Parliament shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the authority and in the manner provided by law. Clause (c) adds that a court shall not pass any order or direction, ad interim or otherwise, in relation to an election for which a schedule has been announced, unless the Election Commission has been given reasonable notice and an opportunity of being heard.[1]

What clause (b) does and does not shut out

Clause (b) bars challenges to "an election". A dispute about a nomination paper, decided before polling, is treated as a step in the process that may be reviewed in limited cases; a challenge to the result belongs to the election petition. In Farid Mia v Amjad Ali, 42 DLR (AD) 13 (1990), the Appellate Division held that the election of a candidate could not be challenged under Article 102, while recognising that once a person assumes office, a quo warranto challenge under Article 102(2)(b)(ii) may ask by what authority that person holds it.[9] That reasoning arose from a local government election, but it captures the line the courts draw: process decisions may be reviewed, results may not.

Clause (c): the Commission must be heard

Clause (c) is procedural but decisive in practice. An election nomination writ filed after the schedule is announced must be served on the Election Commission, and no interim order can be made until the Commission has had reasonable notice and a chance to respond. Petitioners who ask for an ex parte stay are asking for something the Constitution forbids. Build the service step into the timetable from the outset.

Clause (a) is itself under challenge

In September 2025 a High Court Division bench issued a rule asking why Article 125(a) should not be declared in conflict with the Constitution, in writ petitions from Bagerhat and Faridpur challenging the reduction and redrawing of parliamentary seats.[11] No final ruling has been reported. Until one is, delimitation remains outside ordinary nomination disputes.

Scrutiny and the appeal to the Election Commission

The Representation of the People Order 1972 (RPO) governs parliamentary nominations. The Returning Officer scrutinises each paper, and a candidate aggrieved by the decision may prefer an appeal to the Commission within the prescribed period. Article 14(5) of the RPO states that any order passed on such an appeal shall be final.[2] That finality clause does not oust the High Court Division's constitutional jurisdiction, but it shapes how the court approaches the case: it will not sit as a second appeal on the facts.

The 2026 timetable

The schedule for the 13th parliamentary election and referendum was declared on 12 December 2025, with polling on 12 February 2026. Scrutiny ran from 30 December 2025 to 4 January 2026, appeals were received from 5 to 9 January, and the Commission was to dispose of them by 18 January. The last day for withdrawal was 20 January and campaigning began on 22 January.[3]

How to lodge the appeal

For 2026 the Commission required a memorandum in the prescribed form, stating the date of acceptance or rejection and the grounds, with an attested copy of the Returning Officer's order and seven copies in total. Appeals were filed at regional booths at Nirbachan Bhaban in Dhaka, and the appellate decision was collected on application at the central booths.[3] The procedure is administrative, but omissions matter: an appeal without the certified order or clear grounds is easy to dismiss.

What the 2026 numbers show

More than 2,500 nomination papers were filed by the 29 December deadline. Returning Officers declared 1,842 valid and 723 invalid, 645 candidates appealed, and the Commission accepted 418 appeals and rejected 227 after hearings between 10 and 19 January.[4] In other words, most rejections that were appealed were reversed at the Commission stage. The appeal is not a formality to be rushed through on the way to court; for most candidates it is the remedy that works.

When the High Court Division will intervene

An election nomination writ succeeds only on public-law grounds. The court asks whether the Returning Officer or the Commission acted within the law, applied the correct legal test, gave the candidate a fair hearing and reached a decision that a reasonable authority could reach on the record. It does not re-weigh evidence of loan default or citizenship simply because the petitioner disagrees with the result.

Recognised grounds

• Error of law: rejecting a paper for a reason the RPO does not recognise, or misreading a disqualification provision.
• Want of jurisdiction: a decision made after the authority's power had ended or outside its statutory remit.
• Natural justice: deciding against a candidate without notice or an opportunity to answer the allegation.
• Mala fides or irrelevant considerations: rejection driven by factors the law does not permit.
• Disproportionate treatment of curable defects: treating a technical omission as fatal where the law does not require it.

The importance of a hearing has deep roots. In Abdur Rouf v Ministry of LGRD, 43 DLR (HCD) 22 (1991), the High Court Division held that an order by the Chief Election Commissioner directing a recount without notice or hearing to the leading candidate was wholly without jurisdiction and void.[9] The same principle applies to nomination decisions taken behind a candidate's back.

What the court can order

Where it finds an unlawful decision, the High Court Division may suspend the Commission's order or direct that the candidate be allowed to contest, and the Commission is bound to implement the order.[4] It may also issue a rule nisi and leave the final decision for later, which in an election context is often too late to help. Petitioners should frame the relief precisely: a declaration, a direction to accept the nomination, and an interim order that is realistic given Article 125(c).

Late reinstatement has precedent

Candidates have regained their place on the ballot through court orders very close to polling day. Reported examples include Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir in the 2008 election, and several candidates in 2018 who returned to the race five to ten days before voting, in some cases after ballots were printed.[4] A former Election Commission additional secretary has described late reinstatement as legally permissible but a strain on election management.[4]

Election nomination writ cases from 2023 to 2026

Recent cases illustrate how the High Court Division and the Appellate Division approach these disputes. They are described here for what they show about procedure, not as commentary on any party or candidate.

Dual citizenship: Faridpur-3 and Barishal-4 (2023)

Before the January 2024 election, the High Court Division on 18 December 2023 dismissed writs challenging the cancellation of two candidacies on dual citizenship grounds. The disputes turned on Article 66(2)(c) of the Constitution, which bars a person who acquires foreign citizenship from being elected, and on the RPO's parallel provision and affidavit-disclosure requirement. In one case the Returning Officer had accepted the paper and the Commission reversed that decision on a rival's appeal; the court declined to interfere.[8]

Loan default: Cumilla-4 (2026)

In Cumilla-4 the Returning Officer declared a candidate's nomination valid, a rival appealed, and on 17 January 2026 the Commission declared the paper invalid on allegations of loan default. On 21 January 2026 a High Court Division bench summarily rejected the candidate's writ petition seeking restoration.[5] The sequence shows that acceptance at scrutiny is not secure while a rival's appeal is pending.

Chattogram-4: from writ to Appellate Division (2026)

The Chattogram-4 case shows how far a nomination dispute can run. The Returning Officer accepted the nomination on 3 January, the Commission rejected challenges on 18 January, and the High Court Division dismissed two writ petitions on 27 January. On 3 February the Appellate Division granted leave and ordered that, if the candidate won, publication of the result would remain suspended pending the appeal. After polling on 12 February, the Appellate Division on 30 June 2026 cancelled the candidacy on the ground of loan default, so the result could not be gazetted.[6]

Reserved seats: a late filing (2026)

The process applies equally to the reserved women's seats. On 22 April 2026 the Commission cancelled a nomination submitted nineteen minutes after the 4pm deadline. On 27 April 2026 a High Court Division bench directed the Commission to accept the nomination papers.[7] The report does not set out the court's reasoning, so the case should be read as an example of relief, not as authority that deadlines are flexible.

Election petitions after polling

Once the votes are counted, the remedy changes. A challenge to the result is an election petition under the RPO, heard by an election tribunal constituted in the High Court Division. After the February 2026 election, petitions were filed under Article 49 of the RPO by candidates in constituencies including Rajshahi-1, Kurigram-2, Rangpur-4 and Rangpur-6, and were heard by a single bench of the High Court Division.[10]

The distinction matters for strategy. An election nomination writ that is not decided before polling may become academic, or may be overtaken by the election petition route. Where the nomination ground is strong and a rival has won, counsel must consider whether the same complaint should be pleaded in an election petition, which has its own strict filing period and pleading requirements under the RPO. Treating the writ and the petition as interchangeable is a costly mistake.

For associations, clubs and professional bodies, whose elections fall outside the RPO, the forum analysis is different; see our guide to association election disputes in Bangladesh.

Local government nomination disputes

Article 125(b) refers to elections to the office of President and to Parliament. Union parishad, upazila, paurashava and city corporation elections are governed by their own statutes and rules, which provide for appeals against Returning Officers and for election tribunals after polling. The courts' general approach in Farid Mia, a union parishad chairman dispute, is that the result is challenged through the statutory route rather than a writ.[9] An election nomination writ may still lie against a pre-poll decision taken without lawful authority, but the petitioner must show why the statutory appeal was not an equally efficacious remedy.

Parliament amended the local government statutes and the RPO in April 2026, alongside the Voter List and Election Commission Secretariat laws.[12] Before relying on any disqualification or procedural rule, check the current text and the rules issued for the specific election.

Preparing an election nomination writ

An election nomination writ is won or lost on preparation done in hours. The following sequence reflects how we approach these matters for candidates and challengers.

Swipe or scroll →

The petition record

The court will expect the nomination paper and affidavit, the Returning Officer's order, the appeal memorandum, the Commission's order, the documents on which the disputed ground turns (bank clearance letters, CIB reports, citizenship renunciation certificates, voter lists), and proof that the petitioner sought relief from the Commission before coming to court. Missing documents cost a hearing day that the schedule may not allow.

Mistakes to avoid

• Skipping the Commission appeal: the court will ask why the statutory appeal was not used, and in 2026 that appeal succeeded for most appellants.
• Arguing the facts afresh: the court reviews legality, not whether it would have reached a different view on the evidence.
• Ignoring Article 125(c): seeking an interim order without serving the Commission invites refusal.
• Filing late in the schedule: relief granted after ballots are printed is possible but harder to obtain and implement.
• Forgetting the Appellate Division: the losing side can seek leave to appeal, and a High Court Division win is not final.

Comparing the remedies

The table below compares the routes open at each stage. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

The practical rule is to exhaust the Commission appeal promptly, file the writ the moment the Commission's order is available, and prepare for the possibility that the dispute continues into the Appellate Division or an election petition. Our constitutional and writ litigation practice handles election matters on both sides of these disputes, and our guide to the High Court Division of Bangladesh explains how benches and listing work.

What to watch after 2026

Three points will shape the next election nomination writ cycle. First, the April 2026 amendments to the RPO and local government laws will be tested in the next round of local elections, and their transitional provisions deserve close reading.[12] Second, the Chattogram-4 judgment confirms that the Appellate Division will decide a nomination dispute even after polling where it has suspended publication of the result, which makes interim directions at the leave stage a live strategic tool.[6] Third, the pending rule on Article 125(a) may reopen the question of how far delimitation can be litigated.[11]

For a candidate or party, the earliest hours after scrutiny matter most. If a nomination has been rejected or a rival's accepted, contact TRW to review the record and the timetable.

Frequently asked questions

Can I file a writ immediately after the Returning Officer rejects my nomination?

Usually not. The RPO provides an appeal to the Election Commission, and the High Court Division will normally expect that appeal to be used first unless the decision was plainly without jurisdiction.[2]

Is the Election Commission's appeal decision final?

Article 14(5) of the RPO states that an order on appeal is final, but the High Court Division retains its constitutional power under Article 102 to review decisions made without lawful authority.[1] [2]

What does Article 125 of the Constitution say about election cases?

It bars challenges to delimitation laws in any court, allows an election to Parliament or the presidency to be questioned only by election petition, and prevents any court order on a scheduled election unless the Election Commission has had reasonable notice and a hearing.[1]

Can the High Court Division put a rejected candidate back on the ballot?

Yes. The court may suspend the Commission's decision or direct that the candidate be allowed to contest, and the Commission must comply.[4]

Can a rival challenge the acceptance of my nomination?

Yes. Rivals frequently appeal acceptance to the Commission and then file writ petitions, typically on loan default, dual citizenship or affidavit grounds.[5] [8]

How many nomination appeals succeeded in 2026?

Of 645 appeals to the Election Commission, 418 were accepted and 227 rejected after hearings held from 10 to 19 January 2026.[4]

What happens if my writ is not decided before polling?

The dispute may continue, especially if a higher court has suspended publication of the result, as in Chattogram-4 in 2026. Otherwise the result must be challenged by election petition.[6] [10]

Who hears election petitions in Bangladesh?

An election tribunal constituted in the High Court Division under the RPO. After the 2026 election, petitions under Article 49 of the RPO were heard by a single bench.[10]

Does Article 125 apply to union parishad or city corporation elections?

Article 125(b) refers to presidential and parliamentary elections. Local elections have their own statutory appeals and election tribunals, which the courts expect candidates to use.[1] [9]

What documents do I need for an election nomination writ?

The nomination paper and affidavit, the Returning Officer's order, the appeal memorandum and Commission order, the documents on the disputed ground, and proof of service on the Election Commission.